Neil Osterweil

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – With just five fractions of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), men with low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer can have 5-year disease control as good as that provided by conventional external-beam radiation therapy delivered at higher doses in 20-39 fractions, according to new data from the phase 3 randomized PACE-B trial.

Overall, the 5-year event-free survival rates were 95.8% among patients who received SBRT and 94.6% among those who had conventional radiation. The incidence of adverse events was also low in both groups, with no significant differences observed between the trial arms.

The similar event-free survival and toxicity profiles in both groups provide more support for SBRT, which treats prostate cancer with larger radiation fractions over a shorter time period.

“I think we can also say now with a high level of confidence that SBRT can be considered a new standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” said Nicholas van As, MD, MB, from the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research in London, who presented efficacy and safety results from the noninferiority trial at the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) annual meeting. SBRT is more convenient for patients and more cost-effective for health care providers, Dr. Van As added.

Invited discussant Alejandro Berlin, MD, MSc, from Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and the University of Toronto, agreed “that this should be a standard of care for low and favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer,” an option already endorsed by relevant guidelines.

But, Dr. Berlin noted, SBRT requires careful attention to technique to achieve the desired results. Further research will be needed to identify and potentially reduce variability among radiation oncology practice regarding margins, dosimetry goals, dose heterogeneity, treatment schedules, and other factors, he said.
 

An international trial

PACE-B is one of three branches of a multi-center collaboration among 37 radiation therapy centers in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Canada.

In the trial, investigators enrolled 874 patients with T1c or T2c prostate cancer, Gleason score of 3+4 or less, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level no higher than 20 ng/mL, MRI staging, and no prior androgen deprivation therapy. Investigators then randomly assigned them on a 1:1 basis to receive either conventional radiation (n = 441) or SBRT (n = 433).

At the start of the trial, patients who were assigned to the conventional radiation group received 78 Gy in 39 fractions over 4-8 weeks. However, after results from the CHHiP trial, which showed that a 60-Gy, 20-fraction regimen was not inferior to a 74-Gy, 37-fraction regimen, the PACE-B investigators modified the protocol to 62 Gy delivered in 20 fractions.

Patients assigned to SBRT received 36.25 Gy divided into give fractions delivered over 1-2 weeks, with 40 Gy to the clinical target volume.

The primary outcome was noninferiority of SBRT, measured as whether patients remained free of biochemical clinical failure. Biochemical clinical failure was defined as evidence that the cancer was returning, such as an increase in PSA levels or distant metastases or death from prostate cancer.

At a median follow-up of 73.1 months, 5-year event-free survival rates were 94.6% for patients who received conventional radiation therapy and 95.8% for patients who received SBRT, meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of SBRT (P = .007).

Freedom from biochemical and clinical failure, the trial’s primary endpoint, “was significantly better on both arms than our original power calculation, where we expected control rates of approximately 85%,” Dr. Van As said in an ASTRO plenary session.

Toxicity rates were also low in both study arms. The rate of grade 2 or greater urogenital side effects at 5 years was 5.5% in the SBRT arm and 3.2% in the conventional therapy arm. Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal side effects occurred in only two patients, one in each study arm.

Given the findings, “I think it’s now imperative that our surgeons discuss this data with their patients before they perform prostatectomies,” Dr. Van As said.

Neha Vapiwala, MD, president-elect of ASTRO who moderated a media briefing where Dr. Van As summarized the PACE-B data, commented that “this study was conducted very rigorously, with excellent quality assurance.”

The study also highlights that clinicians in the United States have considerable catching up to do, said Dr. Vapiwala, from the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

In the United States, “we are way behind our colleagues on the other side of the pond,” she said. “We are way behind in our uptake of ultra-hypofractionated radiation [such as SBRT], and I do believe that some of that comes from the lack of feeling comfortable with the techniques that are needed and the expertise that is needed.”

PACE-B was funded by Accuray. Dr. Van As disclosed research grants from the company and consulting fees from Varian. Dr. Berlin reported no conflict of interest relevant to the study. Dr. Vapiwala has disclosed a consulting or advisory role with Bayer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Children and young adults with low-risk relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma may be able to skip autologous stem cell transplant.

Patients who received second-line chemoimmunotherapy with nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin, with or without bendamustine, and proceeded to involved-site radiation appeared to have similar survival outcomes to those who received the chemoimmunotherapy combination plus the current second-line standard of care, which includes high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

Among 28 patients with low-risk relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma followed for a median of 32 months, 3-year event-free survival without autologous stem cell transplant was 86.9% and 3-year progression-free survival was 95%, reported Brad Hoppe, MD, MPH, from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. In contrast, 1-year progression-free survival was 91% among the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant, according to results of a trial the investigators published online in Blood in late 2022.

The latest results from the phase 2 CheckMate 744 trial were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Radiation Oncology.

“The findings suggest that children, adolescents, and young adults with low-risk relapsed classic Hodgkin lymphoma can be salvaged with low-toxicity chemoimmunotherapy and may not require high-dose therapy and transplant for a cure,” Dr. Hoppe said in an oral abstract session.

Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, a radiation oncologist who specializes in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and other hematologic malignancies, said that, while the number of patients in the study was small and the follow-up too short, this option is “certainly something that’s very promising for the future.”

“The use of transplant in relapsed patients, which we have been doing for decades, is based on two very old, small, randomized studies,” said Dr. Ng, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who moderated the session.

“So, do we really need to transplant everybody? In the back of our minds, we think that we may be overtreating some patients,” she said.

Several small, retrospective studies exploring treatment with conventional chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy and without transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma have demonstrated only modest results.

The CheckMate 744 trial, however, was designed to examine a risk-adapted and response-adapted approach to treating children, adolescents, and young adults with relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma within the setting of modern immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This approach was developed jointly by investigators with the Children’s Oncology Group and Euronet.

In the nonrandomized trial, patients were stratified into low-risk or standard-risk disease categories based on an algorithm that included factors at the time of initial diagnosis and relapse.

Patients were considered low-risk for relapse in three scenarios: (1) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed at least 1 year after the end of therapy; (2) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed between 3 and 12 months from the end of therapy but had received no more than three cycles of chemotherapy and no radiation therapy; or (3) if they had initial stage IB, IIB, or IIIA disease that relapsed more than 12 months after the end of first-line therapy.

To be included in the low-risk category, patients also had to be free of B symptoms or extranodal disease, free of relapse in prior radiation therapy fields, and have no more than four sites of lymphoma. 

Low-risk patients were treated with a combination of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin, which could be followed by additional brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine for those with a suboptimal response. Patients who achieved complete molecular remission after induction went on to consolidation therapy with involved-site radiation at a total dose of 30 Gy.

Patients considered standard-risk for relapse received the same nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin combination, with or without bendamustine, and then went on to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

In other results for the previously mentioned study published in Blood, the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant had an objective response rate of 95% – 86% of patients achieved complete molecular remission, and 9% achieved partial molecular remission.

At ASTRO, Dr. Hoppe reported results for the 28 patients with low-risk disease. One patient discontinued nivolumab/brentuximab vedotin after two cycles because of skin toxicity and was lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 27 patients, 21 had complete molecular remission after four cycles of the combination, and these patients went on to an additional two cycles of the combination, with 19 of 21 receiving involved-site radiation consolidation. 

Six patients who had either a partial molecular remission or no response were given two additional cycles of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine. Of this group, three went on to complete molecular remission and received involved-site radiation consolidation on protocol. The remaining three patients who did not experience complete molecular remission received involved-site radiation off protocol.

The rate of complete molecular remission after four cycles of induction was 82.1%, and the rate of partial molecular remission was 14.3%, for an objective response rate of 96.4%. The respective response rates with the addition of two cycles of brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine were 92.9% and 7.1%, for an objective response rate of 100%, Dr. Hoppe reported.

Overall, at a median follow-up of 32 months, the 3-year event-free survival rate without transplant was 86.9%, and the 3-year progression-free survival rate was 95%.

Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 22 patients (78.6%) after induction, with 7 of those events (25%) being grade 3 or 4 in severity. Grade 3 or 4 events consisted of skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders in 3 patients, elevated liver function tests in 3 patients, and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 1 patient.

There were no new toxicities detected within 100 days of treatment.

“The results that Dr. Hoppe showed us are really, really good,” Dr. Ng said. And “the volume of treatment is pretty tiny, so I think we can safely say that long-term toxicities are very, very minimal.”

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seagen, Euronet-Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma, and the Children’s Oncology Group. Dr. Hoppe reported serving on a scientific advisory committee for Merck. Dr. Ng reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Children and young adults with low-risk relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma may be able to skip autologous stem cell transplant.

Patients who received second-line chemoimmunotherapy with nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin, with or without bendamustine, and proceeded to involved-site radiation appeared to have similar survival outcomes to those who received the chemoimmunotherapy combination plus the current second-line standard of care, which includes high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

Among 28 patients with low-risk relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma followed for a median of 32 months, 3-year event-free survival without autologous stem cell transplant was 86.9% and 3-year progression-free survival was 95%, reported Brad Hoppe, MD, MPH, from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. In contrast, 1-year progression-free survival was 91% among the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant, according to results of a trial the investigators published online in Blood in late 2022.

The latest results from the phase 2 CheckMate 744 trial were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Radiation Oncology.

“The findings suggest that children, adolescents, and young adults with low-risk relapsed classic Hodgkin lymphoma can be salvaged with low-toxicity chemoimmunotherapy and may not require high-dose therapy and transplant for a cure,” Dr. Hoppe said in an oral abstract session.

Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, a radiation oncologist who specializes in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and other hematologic malignancies, said that, while the number of patients in the study was small and the follow-up too short, this option is “certainly something that’s very promising for the future.”

“The use of transplant in relapsed patients, which we have been doing for decades, is based on two very old, small, randomized studies,” said Dr. Ng, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who moderated the session.

“So, do we really need to transplant everybody? In the back of our minds, we think that we may be overtreating some patients,” she said.

Several small, retrospective studies exploring treatment with conventional chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy and without transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma have demonstrated only modest results.

The CheckMate 744 trial, however, was designed to examine a risk-adapted and response-adapted approach to treating children, adolescents, and young adults with relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma within the setting of modern immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This approach was developed jointly by investigators with the Children’s Oncology Group and Euronet.

In the nonrandomized trial, patients were stratified into low-risk or standard-risk disease categories based on an algorithm that included factors at the time of initial diagnosis and relapse.

Patients were considered low-risk for relapse in three scenarios: (1) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed at least 1 year after the end of therapy; (2) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed between 3 and 12 months from the end of therapy but had received no more than three cycles of chemotherapy and no radiation therapy; or (3) if they had initial stage IB, IIB, or IIIA disease that relapsed more than 12 months after the end of first-line therapy.

To be included in the low-risk category, patients also had to be free of B symptoms or extranodal disease, free of relapse in prior radiation therapy fields, and have no more than four sites of lymphoma. 

Low-risk patients were treated with a combination of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin, which could be followed by additional brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine for those with a suboptimal response. Patients who achieved complete molecular remission after induction went on to consolidation therapy with involved-site radiation at a total dose of 30 Gy.

Patients considered standard-risk for relapse received the same nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin combination, with or without bendamustine, and then went on to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

In other results for the previously mentioned study published in Blood, the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant had an objective response rate of 95% – 86% of patients achieved complete molecular remission, and 9% achieved partial molecular remission.

At ASTRO, Dr. Hoppe reported results for the 28 patients with low-risk disease. One patient discontinued nivolumab/brentuximab vedotin after two cycles because of skin toxicity and was lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 27 patients, 21 had complete molecular remission after four cycles of the combination, and these patients went on to an additional two cycles of the combination, with 19 of 21 receiving involved-site radiation consolidation. 

Six patients who had either a partial molecular remission or no response were given two additional cycles of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine. Of this group, three went on to complete molecular remission and received involved-site radiation consolidation on protocol. The remaining three patients who did not experience complete molecular remission received involved-site radiation off protocol.

The rate of complete molecular remission after four cycles of induction was 82.1%, and the rate of partial molecular remission was 14.3%, for an objective response rate of 96.4%. The respective response rates with the addition of two cycles of brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine were 92.9% and 7.1%, for an objective response rate of 100%, Dr. Hoppe reported.

Overall, at a median follow-up of 32 months, the 3-year event-free survival rate without transplant was 86.9%, and the 3-year progression-free survival rate was 95%.

Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 22 patients (78.6%) after induction, with 7 of those events (25%) being grade 3 or 4 in severity. Grade 3 or 4 events consisted of skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders in 3 patients, elevated liver function tests in 3 patients, and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 1 patient.

There were no new toxicities detected within 100 days of treatment.

“The results that Dr. Hoppe showed us are really, really good,” Dr. Ng said. And “the volume of treatment is pretty tiny, so I think we can safely say that long-term toxicities are very, very minimal.”

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seagen, Euronet-Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma, and the Children’s Oncology Group. Dr. Hoppe reported serving on a scientific advisory committee for Merck. Dr. Ng reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO – Children and young adults with low-risk relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma may be able to skip autologous stem cell transplant.

Patients who received second-line chemoimmunotherapy with nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin, with or without bendamustine, and proceeded to involved-site radiation appeared to have similar survival outcomes to those who received the chemoimmunotherapy combination plus the current second-line standard of care, which includes high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

Among 28 patients with low-risk relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma followed for a median of 32 months, 3-year event-free survival without autologous stem cell transplant was 86.9% and 3-year progression-free survival was 95%, reported Brad Hoppe, MD, MPH, from the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. In contrast, 1-year progression-free survival was 91% among the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant, according to results of a trial the investigators published online in Blood in late 2022.

The latest results from the phase 2 CheckMate 744 trial were reported at the annual meeting of the American Society of Radiation Oncology.

“The findings suggest that children, adolescents, and young adults with low-risk relapsed classic Hodgkin lymphoma can be salvaged with low-toxicity chemoimmunotherapy and may not require high-dose therapy and transplant for a cure,” Dr. Hoppe said in an oral abstract session.

Andrea Ng, MD, MPH, a radiation oncologist who specializes in treating patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and other hematologic malignancies, said that, while the number of patients in the study was small and the follow-up too short, this option is “certainly something that’s very promising for the future.”

“The use of transplant in relapsed patients, which we have been doing for decades, is based on two very old, small, randomized studies,” said Dr. Ng, from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who moderated the session.

“So, do we really need to transplant everybody? In the back of our minds, we think that we may be overtreating some patients,” she said.

Several small, retrospective studies exploring treatment with conventional chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy and without transplant in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma have demonstrated only modest results.

The CheckMate 744 trial, however, was designed to examine a risk-adapted and response-adapted approach to treating children, adolescents, and young adults with relapsed or refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma within the setting of modern immunotherapy and targeted therapy. This approach was developed jointly by investigators with the Children’s Oncology Group and Euronet.

In the nonrandomized trial, patients were stratified into low-risk or standard-risk disease categories based on an algorithm that included factors at the time of initial diagnosis and relapse.

Patients were considered low-risk for relapse in three scenarios: (1) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed at least 1 year after the end of therapy; (2) if they had initial stage IA or IIA disease that relapsed between 3 and 12 months from the end of therapy but had received no more than three cycles of chemotherapy and no radiation therapy; or (3) if they had initial stage IB, IIB, or IIIA disease that relapsed more than 12 months after the end of first-line therapy.

To be included in the low-risk category, patients also had to be free of B symptoms or extranodal disease, free of relapse in prior radiation therapy fields, and have no more than four sites of lymphoma. 

Low-risk patients were treated with a combination of nivolumab and brentuximab vedotin, which could be followed by additional brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine for those with a suboptimal response. Patients who achieved complete molecular remission after induction went on to consolidation therapy with involved-site radiation at a total dose of 30 Gy.

Patients considered standard-risk for relapse received the same nivolumab-brentuximab vedotin combination, with or without bendamustine, and then went on to high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant.

In other results for the previously mentioned study published in Blood, the 44 standard-risk patients who received high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplant had an objective response rate of 95% – 86% of patients achieved complete molecular remission, and 9% achieved partial molecular remission.

At ASTRO, Dr. Hoppe reported results for the 28 patients with low-risk disease. One patient discontinued nivolumab/brentuximab vedotin after two cycles because of skin toxicity and was lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 27 patients, 21 had complete molecular remission after four cycles of the combination, and these patients went on to an additional two cycles of the combination, with 19 of 21 receiving involved-site radiation consolidation. 

Six patients who had either a partial molecular remission or no response were given two additional cycles of brentuximab vedotin plus bendamustine. Of this group, three went on to complete molecular remission and received involved-site radiation consolidation on protocol. The remaining three patients who did not experience complete molecular remission received involved-site radiation off protocol.

The rate of complete molecular remission after four cycles of induction was 82.1%, and the rate of partial molecular remission was 14.3%, for an objective response rate of 96.4%. The respective response rates with the addition of two cycles of brentuximab vedotin and bendamustine were 92.9% and 7.1%, for an objective response rate of 100%, Dr. Hoppe reported.

Overall, at a median follow-up of 32 months, the 3-year event-free survival rate without transplant was 86.9%, and the 3-year progression-free survival rate was 95%.

Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 22 patients (78.6%) after induction, with 7 of those events (25%) being grade 3 or 4 in severity. Grade 3 or 4 events consisted of skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders in 3 patients, elevated liver function tests in 3 patients, and blood and lymphatic system disorders in 1 patient.

There were no new toxicities detected within 100 days of treatment.

“The results that Dr. Hoppe showed us are really, really good,” Dr. Ng said. And “the volume of treatment is pretty tiny, so I think we can safely say that long-term toxicities are very, very minimal.”

The study was supported by Bristol-Myers Squibb in collaboration with Seagen, Euronet-Paediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma, and the Children’s Oncology Group. Dr. Hoppe reported serving on a scientific advisory committee for Merck. Dr. Ng reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM SOHO 2023

It may be possible for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma to safely skip their interim PET-CT scan (PET2) following two cycles of frontline brentuximab vedotin (Adcetris), according to research presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology in Houston.

Data from four recent studies indicate that adding frontline brentuximab vedotin to AVD chemotherapy (doxorubicin, vinblastine, dacarbazine) improves outcomes for patients, regardless of PET2 scan results, according to lead investigator Ravand Samaeekia, MD, MSc, from Loma Linda (Calif.) University Medical Center.

These studies, including one conducted by Dr. Samaeekia’s team, provide “evidence for the safe omission of PET2 in treatment regimens that contain brentuximab vedotin,” Dr. Samaeekia, who presented the data, concluded.

Performing an interim PET-CT scan after two cycles of chemotherapy can help oncologists adapt treatment protocols for patients with Hodgkin lymphoma and has become the standard of care for these patients.

However, “there are obviously challenges associated with implementing a PET-guided approach,” said Dr. Samaeekia. Additional PET-CT scans can be costly, time consuming, and increase patients’ risk for toxicities when treatment is escalated based on the scan results.

Given these caveats, Dr. Samaeekia reviewed data exploring whether PET2 has predictive value for patients who receive the anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, brentuximab vedotin, as part of first-line treatment alongside AVD chemotherapy.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team analyzed findings from three trials – ECHELON-1, AHOD1331, and BREACH – which assessed frontline standard of care chemotherapy with or without brentuximab. The team found that incorporating brentuximab into frontline treatment resulted in superior efficacy, and PET2 scans results generally did not change how patients were managed.

In ECHELON-1, 6-year overall survival favored patients with advanced Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab and were PET2 negative (94.9% vs. 90.6%; hazard ratio for death, 0.54) as well as those who were PET2 positive (95% vs. 77%; HR, 0.16). Overall, just over 2% of patients who received the brentuximab regimen switched to an alternative chemotherapy and even fewer did so based on PET2 results.

In AHOD1331, 3-year event-free survival was significantly higher among adolescents and children with Hodgkin lymphoma who received brentuximab – 90.7% for those who had slow-responding lesions and 92.3% for those with rapid-responding lesions. Based on these results, the authors concluded that adding brentuximab “eliminated the predictive value of the interim PET assessment.” The BREACH trial echoed the findings from ECHELON-1 and AHOD1331.

Finally, in a retrospective study of 40 patients treated at Loma Linda with brentuximab vedotin plus AVD, Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues found that 24 were PET2 negative and 12 were PET2 positive. All patients who were PET2 negative remained negative on the end-of-treatment PET, indicating no cancer progression. Of the 12 PET2-positive patients, four (33%) remained PET positive at the end of treatment. Only one patient overall changed regimens following PET2.

Dr. Samaeekia’s team concluded that PET2 scan results “did not have any meaningful impact” on patient management or outcomes.

During the Q&A, Martin Hutchings, MD, PhD, challenged the idea that PET2 can be omitted. Dr. Hutchings, from the Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, pointed out that 4 of the 12 PET2-positive patients treated at Loma Linda were still PET positive at the end of treatment.

Even so, Dr. Samaeekia explained, PET2 findings did not alter treatment for most patients, noting that doing a PET2 scan may make “us feel better,” but it ultimately doesn’t “make any difference in our management.”

In the AHOD1331 study, “the findings on the interim PET scan were not helpful in the ultimate outcome, whether it was either positive or negative,” added session comoderator Jonathan W. Friedberg, MD, MMSc, director of the James P. Wilmot Cancer Institute at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center.

The study by Dr. Samaeekia and colleagues was internally funded. Dr. Samaeekia reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Hutchings has previously reported consultancy and research funding from numerous companies. Dr. Friedberg reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Should patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for whom induction therapy fails to induce complete remission proceed to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant anyway? Or do these patients fare better when they receive an intensive salvage induction regimen to bring them into remission before transplant?

This critically important question was debated at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, held in Houston and online.

Johannes Schetelig, MD, argued in favor of proceeding to transplant, even without a complete remission.

“In the past, I’ve told many patients with relapsed or refractory AML that we do need to induce a [complete remission] prior to transplantation,” said Dr. Schetelig, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS in Dresden, Germany. “But is it true?”

According to findings from a recent randomized trial, it may not be. The trial, led by Dr. Schetelig, found that patients with AML who received immediate allogeneic transplant without first having achieved a complete response following induction therapy did just as well as those who received intensive salvage induction therapy to establish remission before transplant.

If this finding holds, it “completely upends” how experts have traditionally approached patients with AML, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the University of Miami said at a conference press briefing last year.

The phase 3 ASAP trial, presented at last year’s American Society of Hematology meeting, included patients with AML who had had a poor response or who had experienced a relapse after first induction therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to a remission-induction strategy prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) or a disease-control approach of watchful waiting followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a complete response at day 56 following alloHCT.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 83.5% of patients in the disease-control group and 81% in the remission-induction group achieved treatment success. Similarly, in the per-protocol analysis, 84.1% and 81.3%, respectively, achieved a complete response at day 56 after alloHCT. After a median follow-up of 4 years, there were no differences in leukemia-free survival or overall survival between the two groups.

Another advantage to forgoing an intensive salvage induction regimen: Patients in the disease-control arm experienced significantly fewer severe adverse events (23% vs. 64% in the remission induction arm) and spent a mean of 27 fewer days in the hospital prior to transplantation.

At last year’s press briefing, Dr. Schetelig said his team did not expect that a complete response on day 56 after transplantation would translate into “equal long-term benefit” for these groups. “This is what I was really astonished about,” he said.

Delving further into the findings, Dr. Schetelig explained that in the remission-induction arm patients who had had a complete response prior to transplantation demonstrated significantly better overall survival at 4 years than those who had not had a complete response at that point: 60% vs. 40%.

The study also revealed that in the disease-control arm, for patients under watchful waiting who did not need low-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone for disease control, overall survival outcomes were similar to those of patients in the remission-induction arm who achieved a complete response.

These findings suggest that patients who can be bridged with watchful waiting may have a more favorable disease biology, and chemosensitivity could just be a biomarker for disease biology. In other words, “AML biology matters for transplant outcome and not tumor load,” Dr. Schetelig explained.

A recent study that found that having minimal residual disease (MRD) prior to transplant “had no independent effect on leukemia-free survival” supports this idea, he added.

Overall, Dr. Schetelig concluded that data from the ASAP trial suggest that watchful waiting prior to alloHCT represents “an alternative” for some patients.
 

Counterpoint: Aim for complete remission

Ronald B. Walter, MD, PhD, argued the counterpoint: that residual disease before transplantation is associated with worse posttransplant outcomes and represents a meaningful pretransplant therapeutic target.

The goal of intensifying treatment for patients with residual disease is to erase disease vestiges prior to transplantation.

“The idea is that by doing so you might optimize the benefit-to-risk ratio and ultimately improve outcomes,” said Dr. Walter, of the translational science and therapeutics division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Several reports support this view that patients who are MRD negative at the time of transplant have significantly better survival outcomes than patients with residual disease who undergo transplant.

A 2016 study from Dr. Walter and colleagues at Fred Hutchinson, for instance, found that 3-year overall survival was significantly higher among patients with no MRD who underwent myeloablative alloHCT: 73% vs. 26% of those in MRD-positive morphologic remission and 23% of patients with active AML.

Another study, published the year before by a different research team, also revealed that “adult patients with AML in morphologic [complete remission] but with detectable MRD who undergo alloHCT have poor outcomes, which approximates those who undergo transplantation with active disease,” the authors of the 2015 study wrote in a commentary highlighting findings from both studies.

Still, providing intensive therapy prior to transplant comes with drawbacks, Dr. Walter noted. These downsides include potential toxicity from more intense therapy, which may prevent further therapy with curative intent, as well as the possibility that deintensifying therapy could lead to difficult-to-treat relapse.

It may, however, be possible to reduce the intensity of therapy before transplant and still achieve good outcomes after transplant, though the data remain mixed.

One trial found that a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen was associated with a greater risk of relapse post transplant and worse overall survival, compared with standard myeloablative conditioning.

However, another recent trial in which patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome were randomly assigned to either a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen or an intensified version of that regimen prior to transplant demonstrated no difference in relapse rates and overall survival, regardless of patients’ MRD status prior to transplant.

“To me, it’s still key to go into transplant with as little disease as possible,” Dr. Walter said. How much value there is in targeted treatment to further reduce disease burden prior to transplant “will really require further careful study,” he said.

The ASAP trial was sponsored by DKMS. Dr. Schetelig has received honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Walter reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Should patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for whom induction therapy fails to induce complete remission proceed to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant anyway? Or do these patients fare better when they receive an intensive salvage induction regimen to bring them into remission before transplant?

This critically important question was debated at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, held in Houston and online.

Johannes Schetelig, MD, argued in favor of proceeding to transplant, even without a complete remission.

“In the past, I’ve told many patients with relapsed or refractory AML that we do need to induce a [complete remission] prior to transplantation,” said Dr. Schetelig, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS in Dresden, Germany. “But is it true?”

According to findings from a recent randomized trial, it may not be. The trial, led by Dr. Schetelig, found that patients with AML who received immediate allogeneic transplant without first having achieved a complete response following induction therapy did just as well as those who received intensive salvage induction therapy to establish remission before transplant.

If this finding holds, it “completely upends” how experts have traditionally approached patients with AML, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the University of Miami said at a conference press briefing last year.

The phase 3 ASAP trial, presented at last year’s American Society of Hematology meeting, included patients with AML who had had a poor response or who had experienced a relapse after first induction therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to a remission-induction strategy prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) or a disease-control approach of watchful waiting followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a complete response at day 56 following alloHCT.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 83.5% of patients in the disease-control group and 81% in the remission-induction group achieved treatment success. Similarly, in the per-protocol analysis, 84.1% and 81.3%, respectively, achieved a complete response at day 56 after alloHCT. After a median follow-up of 4 years, there were no differences in leukemia-free survival or overall survival between the two groups.

Another advantage to forgoing an intensive salvage induction regimen: Patients in the disease-control arm experienced significantly fewer severe adverse events (23% vs. 64% in the remission induction arm) and spent a mean of 27 fewer days in the hospital prior to transplantation.

At last year’s press briefing, Dr. Schetelig said his team did not expect that a complete response on day 56 after transplantation would translate into “equal long-term benefit” for these groups. “This is what I was really astonished about,” he said.

Delving further into the findings, Dr. Schetelig explained that in the remission-induction arm patients who had had a complete response prior to transplantation demonstrated significantly better overall survival at 4 years than those who had not had a complete response at that point: 60% vs. 40%.

The study also revealed that in the disease-control arm, for patients under watchful waiting who did not need low-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone for disease control, overall survival outcomes were similar to those of patients in the remission-induction arm who achieved a complete response.

These findings suggest that patients who can be bridged with watchful waiting may have a more favorable disease biology, and chemosensitivity could just be a biomarker for disease biology. In other words, “AML biology matters for transplant outcome and not tumor load,” Dr. Schetelig explained.

A recent study that found that having minimal residual disease (MRD) prior to transplant “had no independent effect on leukemia-free survival” supports this idea, he added.

Overall, Dr. Schetelig concluded that data from the ASAP trial suggest that watchful waiting prior to alloHCT represents “an alternative” for some patients.
 

Counterpoint: Aim for complete remission

Ronald B. Walter, MD, PhD, argued the counterpoint: that residual disease before transplantation is associated with worse posttransplant outcomes and represents a meaningful pretransplant therapeutic target.

The goal of intensifying treatment for patients with residual disease is to erase disease vestiges prior to transplantation.

“The idea is that by doing so you might optimize the benefit-to-risk ratio and ultimately improve outcomes,” said Dr. Walter, of the translational science and therapeutics division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Several reports support this view that patients who are MRD negative at the time of transplant have significantly better survival outcomes than patients with residual disease who undergo transplant.

A 2016 study from Dr. Walter and colleagues at Fred Hutchinson, for instance, found that 3-year overall survival was significantly higher among patients with no MRD who underwent myeloablative alloHCT: 73% vs. 26% of those in MRD-positive morphologic remission and 23% of patients with active AML.

Another study, published the year before by a different research team, also revealed that “adult patients with AML in morphologic [complete remission] but with detectable MRD who undergo alloHCT have poor outcomes, which approximates those who undergo transplantation with active disease,” the authors of the 2015 study wrote in a commentary highlighting findings from both studies.

Still, providing intensive therapy prior to transplant comes with drawbacks, Dr. Walter noted. These downsides include potential toxicity from more intense therapy, which may prevent further therapy with curative intent, as well as the possibility that deintensifying therapy could lead to difficult-to-treat relapse.

It may, however, be possible to reduce the intensity of therapy before transplant and still achieve good outcomes after transplant, though the data remain mixed.

One trial found that a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen was associated with a greater risk of relapse post transplant and worse overall survival, compared with standard myeloablative conditioning.

However, another recent trial in which patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome were randomly assigned to either a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen or an intensified version of that regimen prior to transplant demonstrated no difference in relapse rates and overall survival, regardless of patients’ MRD status prior to transplant.

“To me, it’s still key to go into transplant with as little disease as possible,” Dr. Walter said. How much value there is in targeted treatment to further reduce disease burden prior to transplant “will really require further careful study,” he said.

The ASAP trial was sponsored by DKMS. Dr. Schetelig has received honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Walter reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Should patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for whom induction therapy fails to induce complete remission proceed to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant anyway? Or do these patients fare better when they receive an intensive salvage induction regimen to bring them into remission before transplant?

This critically important question was debated at the annual meeting of the Society of Hematologic Oncology, held in Houston and online.

Johannes Schetelig, MD, argued in favor of proceeding to transplant, even without a complete remission.

“In the past, I’ve told many patients with relapsed or refractory AML that we do need to induce a [complete remission] prior to transplantation,” said Dr. Schetelig, from the Clinical Trials Unit at DKMS in Dresden, Germany. “But is it true?”

According to findings from a recent randomized trial, it may not be. The trial, led by Dr. Schetelig, found that patients with AML who received immediate allogeneic transplant without first having achieved a complete response following induction therapy did just as well as those who received intensive salvage induction therapy to establish remission before transplant.

If this finding holds, it “completely upends” how experts have traditionally approached patients with AML, Mikkael A. Sekeres, MD, of the University of Miami said at a conference press briefing last year.

The phase 3 ASAP trial, presented at last year’s American Society of Hematology meeting, included patients with AML who had had a poor response or who had experienced a relapse after first induction therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to a remission-induction strategy prior to allogeneic stem cell transplant (alloHCT) or a disease-control approach of watchful waiting followed by sequential conditioning and alloHCT. The primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a complete response at day 56 following alloHCT.

In an intention-to-treat analysis, 83.5% of patients in the disease-control group and 81% in the remission-induction group achieved treatment success. Similarly, in the per-protocol analysis, 84.1% and 81.3%, respectively, achieved a complete response at day 56 after alloHCT. After a median follow-up of 4 years, there were no differences in leukemia-free survival or overall survival between the two groups.

Another advantage to forgoing an intensive salvage induction regimen: Patients in the disease-control arm experienced significantly fewer severe adverse events (23% vs. 64% in the remission induction arm) and spent a mean of 27 fewer days in the hospital prior to transplantation.

At last year’s press briefing, Dr. Schetelig said his team did not expect that a complete response on day 56 after transplantation would translate into “equal long-term benefit” for these groups. “This is what I was really astonished about,” he said.

Delving further into the findings, Dr. Schetelig explained that in the remission-induction arm patients who had had a complete response prior to transplantation demonstrated significantly better overall survival at 4 years than those who had not had a complete response at that point: 60% vs. 40%.

The study also revealed that in the disease-control arm, for patients under watchful waiting who did not need low-dose cytarabine and mitoxantrone for disease control, overall survival outcomes were similar to those of patients in the remission-induction arm who achieved a complete response.

These findings suggest that patients who can be bridged with watchful waiting may have a more favorable disease biology, and chemosensitivity could just be a biomarker for disease biology. In other words, “AML biology matters for transplant outcome and not tumor load,” Dr. Schetelig explained.

A recent study that found that having minimal residual disease (MRD) prior to transplant “had no independent effect on leukemia-free survival” supports this idea, he added.

Overall, Dr. Schetelig concluded that data from the ASAP trial suggest that watchful waiting prior to alloHCT represents “an alternative” for some patients.
 

Counterpoint: Aim for complete remission

Ronald B. Walter, MD, PhD, argued the counterpoint: that residual disease before transplantation is associated with worse posttransplant outcomes and represents a meaningful pretransplant therapeutic target.

The goal of intensifying treatment for patients with residual disease is to erase disease vestiges prior to transplantation.

“The idea is that by doing so you might optimize the benefit-to-risk ratio and ultimately improve outcomes,” said Dr. Walter, of the translational science and therapeutics division at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

Several reports support this view that patients who are MRD negative at the time of transplant have significantly better survival outcomes than patients with residual disease who undergo transplant.

A 2016 study from Dr. Walter and colleagues at Fred Hutchinson, for instance, found that 3-year overall survival was significantly higher among patients with no MRD who underwent myeloablative alloHCT: 73% vs. 26% of those in MRD-positive morphologic remission and 23% of patients with active AML.

Another study, published the year before by a different research team, also revealed that “adult patients with AML in morphologic [complete remission] but with detectable MRD who undergo alloHCT have poor outcomes, which approximates those who undergo transplantation with active disease,” the authors of the 2015 study wrote in a commentary highlighting findings from both studies.

Still, providing intensive therapy prior to transplant comes with drawbacks, Dr. Walter noted. These downsides include potential toxicity from more intense therapy, which may prevent further therapy with curative intent, as well as the possibility that deintensifying therapy could lead to difficult-to-treat relapse.

It may, however, be possible to reduce the intensity of therapy before transplant and still achieve good outcomes after transplant, though the data remain mixed.

One trial found that a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen was associated with a greater risk of relapse post transplant and worse overall survival, compared with standard myeloablative conditioning.

However, another recent trial in which patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome were randomly assigned to either a reduced-intensity conditioning regimen or an intensified version of that regimen prior to transplant demonstrated no difference in relapse rates and overall survival, regardless of patients’ MRD status prior to transplant.

“To me, it’s still key to go into transplant with as little disease as possible,” Dr. Walter said. How much value there is in targeted treatment to further reduce disease burden prior to transplant “will really require further careful study,” he said.

The ASAP trial was sponsored by DKMS. Dr. Schetelig has received honoraria from BeiGene, BMS, Janssen, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, and DKMS. Dr. Walter reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A simple urine test can accurately diagnose urothelial carcinoma as well as predict the risk for recurrence for those under surveillance, according to findings from a recent validation study.

The urinary comprehensive genomic profiling (uCGP) assay (UroAmp, Convergent Genomics) had a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria – identifying 95 of 100 people with urothelial carcinoma and 90 of 100 patients without the disease.

For patients under surveillance for urothelial cancer recurrence, the test was six times more accurate than traditional clinical risk factors for predicting recurrence.

“Considering its performance in multiple areas of urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and monitoring, uCGP shows great promise to enhance delivery of risk-stratified care,” Keyan Salari, MD, PhD, director of the prostate cancer genetics program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“The idea is that this could be used as kind of a first-pass screening tool for patients with hematuria that could potentially obviate the need for undergoing imaging such as CT scans or cystoscopy,” Dr. Salari said in an interview.

The uCGP test is a next-generation sequencing assay that identifies mutations in 60 genes associated with bladder cancer. An earlier analysis evaluating the test as a potential screening tool focused on 10 key genes covered in the assay. The study found the test accurately predicted future bladder cancer in 66% of urine samples, including some that had been collected more than a decade prior to being tested.

In the current case-control study, Dr. Salari and colleagues used a total of 581 samples – 333 samples for classifying disease and developing algorithms for initial diagnosis, surveillance, and molecular-grade prediction, as well as 248 samples for blinded validation. The test’s performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Overall, the test demonstrated a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial urothelial carcinoma diagnosis, but performed even better for the most aggressive tumors, with 100% sensitivity for diagnosing high-grade urothelial carcinoma and muscle-invasive tumors.

On the diagnosis front, the test had a positive predictive value of 88% and a negative predictive value of 99%.

Among patients under surveillance, the test predicted the risk of recurrence significantly better than standard clinical risk factors (hazard ratio, 6.2). The test demonstrated a positive predictive value similar to that observed for cytology (45% vs. 42%) but a much higher sensitivity (79% vs. 25%). The test also demonstrated a negative predictive value of 91% for recurrence.

The molecular-grade algorithm performed well, with a positive predictive value for high-grade disease of 88% and a specificity of 95% in the validation cohort.

Overall, “uCGP enables noninvasive, accurate urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and risk stratification in both hematuria and urothelial carcinoma surveillance patients,” the authors concluded. The test is not currently reimbursed by Medicare, but negotiations with third-party payers are reportedly underway.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Salari reported grants from Convergent Genomics during the conduct of the study as well as grants from Urology Care Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and personal fees from OrigiMed outside the submitted work. Several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Convergent Genomics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A simple urine test can accurately diagnose urothelial carcinoma as well as predict the risk for recurrence for those under surveillance, according to findings from a recent validation study.

The urinary comprehensive genomic profiling (uCGP) assay (UroAmp, Convergent Genomics) had a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria – identifying 95 of 100 people with urothelial carcinoma and 90 of 100 patients without the disease.

For patients under surveillance for urothelial cancer recurrence, the test was six times more accurate than traditional clinical risk factors for predicting recurrence.

“Considering its performance in multiple areas of urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and monitoring, uCGP shows great promise to enhance delivery of risk-stratified care,” Keyan Salari, MD, PhD, director of the prostate cancer genetics program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“The idea is that this could be used as kind of a first-pass screening tool for patients with hematuria that could potentially obviate the need for undergoing imaging such as CT scans or cystoscopy,” Dr. Salari said in an interview.

The uCGP test is a next-generation sequencing assay that identifies mutations in 60 genes associated with bladder cancer. An earlier analysis evaluating the test as a potential screening tool focused on 10 key genes covered in the assay. The study found the test accurately predicted future bladder cancer in 66% of urine samples, including some that had been collected more than a decade prior to being tested.

In the current case-control study, Dr. Salari and colleagues used a total of 581 samples – 333 samples for classifying disease and developing algorithms for initial diagnosis, surveillance, and molecular-grade prediction, as well as 248 samples for blinded validation. The test’s performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Overall, the test demonstrated a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial urothelial carcinoma diagnosis, but performed even better for the most aggressive tumors, with 100% sensitivity for diagnosing high-grade urothelial carcinoma and muscle-invasive tumors.

On the diagnosis front, the test had a positive predictive value of 88% and a negative predictive value of 99%.

Among patients under surveillance, the test predicted the risk of recurrence significantly better than standard clinical risk factors (hazard ratio, 6.2). The test demonstrated a positive predictive value similar to that observed for cytology (45% vs. 42%) but a much higher sensitivity (79% vs. 25%). The test also demonstrated a negative predictive value of 91% for recurrence.

The molecular-grade algorithm performed well, with a positive predictive value for high-grade disease of 88% and a specificity of 95% in the validation cohort.

Overall, “uCGP enables noninvasive, accurate urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and risk stratification in both hematuria and urothelial carcinoma surveillance patients,” the authors concluded. The test is not currently reimbursed by Medicare, but negotiations with third-party payers are reportedly underway.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Salari reported grants from Convergent Genomics during the conduct of the study as well as grants from Urology Care Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and personal fees from OrigiMed outside the submitted work. Several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Convergent Genomics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A simple urine test can accurately diagnose urothelial carcinoma as well as predict the risk for recurrence for those under surveillance, according to findings from a recent validation study.

The urinary comprehensive genomic profiling (uCGP) assay (UroAmp, Convergent Genomics) had a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial diagnosis of urothelial carcinoma in patients with hematuria – identifying 95 of 100 people with urothelial carcinoma and 90 of 100 patients without the disease.

For patients under surveillance for urothelial cancer recurrence, the test was six times more accurate than traditional clinical risk factors for predicting recurrence.

“Considering its performance in multiple areas of urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and monitoring, uCGP shows great promise to enhance delivery of risk-stratified care,” Keyan Salari, MD, PhD, director of the prostate cancer genetics program at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, and colleagues wrote in a study published in Clinical Cancer Research.

“The idea is that this could be used as kind of a first-pass screening tool for patients with hematuria that could potentially obviate the need for undergoing imaging such as CT scans or cystoscopy,” Dr. Salari said in an interview.

The uCGP test is a next-generation sequencing assay that identifies mutations in 60 genes associated with bladder cancer. An earlier analysis evaluating the test as a potential screening tool focused on 10 key genes covered in the assay. The study found the test accurately predicted future bladder cancer in 66% of urine samples, including some that had been collected more than a decade prior to being tested.

In the current case-control study, Dr. Salari and colleagues used a total of 581 samples – 333 samples for classifying disease and developing algorithms for initial diagnosis, surveillance, and molecular-grade prediction, as well as 248 samples for blinded validation. The test’s performance was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Overall, the test demonstrated a specificity of 95% and sensitivity of 90% for an initial urothelial carcinoma diagnosis, but performed even better for the most aggressive tumors, with 100% sensitivity for diagnosing high-grade urothelial carcinoma and muscle-invasive tumors.

On the diagnosis front, the test had a positive predictive value of 88% and a negative predictive value of 99%.

Among patients under surveillance, the test predicted the risk of recurrence significantly better than standard clinical risk factors (hazard ratio, 6.2). The test demonstrated a positive predictive value similar to that observed for cytology (45% vs. 42%) but a much higher sensitivity (79% vs. 25%). The test also demonstrated a negative predictive value of 91% for recurrence.

The molecular-grade algorithm performed well, with a positive predictive value for high-grade disease of 88% and a specificity of 95% in the validation cohort.

Overall, “uCGP enables noninvasive, accurate urothelial carcinoma diagnosis and risk stratification in both hematuria and urothelial carcinoma surveillance patients,” the authors concluded. The test is not currently reimbursed by Medicare, but negotiations with third-party payers are reportedly underway.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute. Dr. Salari reported grants from Convergent Genomics during the conduct of the study as well as grants from Urology Care Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation, and personal fees from OrigiMed outside the submitted work. Several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Convergent Genomics.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Randomized controlled trials in oncology can make or break an investigational drug, with both patient lives and pharmaceutical company profits at stake.

These trials typically pit two options against each other, an investigational therapy and a control therapy – often a standard of care – to see which has greater benefit.

But there are ethical gray areas in trial designs that may, intentionally or inadvertently, tip the balance in favor of the experimental arm of a trial. These biases may result in substandard care for trial participants, even harm, and can invalidate or dilute scientific findings.

One major issue is whether participants in the control arm of a trial receive the standard of care or active therapy after disease progression. In clinical trial parlance, this practice is called crossover.

Patients who do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression may be “unfairly disadvantaged,” experts wrote in a commentary published in late June.What’s worse, optimal crossover does not always happen, commentary author Edward R. Scheffer Cliff, MBBS, MPH, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston said in an interview.

A recent example comes from the ADAURA trial comparing adjuvant therapy with osimertinib (Tagrisso) to placebo following complete resection of localized or locally advanced stage IB-IIIA non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring EGFR mutations.

The trial, which began in November 2015, was unblinded early and halted on the recommendation of the independent data-monitoring committee because osimertinib was associated with a nearly 80% reduction in the risk of disease recurrence or death. These data led to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2018 approval of osimertinib as first-line treatment in this setting.

The recent overall survival data from ADAURA, presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, helped confirm the drug’s benefit: Osimertinib was associated with a 51% reduced risk for death, compared with placebo.

But critics of this report were troubled by the fact that, despite the reported benefits of osimertinib, only 79 of 205 patients (38.5%) in the control arm who relapsed received the drug – now considered standard of care in this setting.

The low rate of osimertinib crossover represents a serious flaw in the trial design and potentially an ethical problem. 

In the commentary, Dr. Cliff, alongside colleagues Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD, MPH, and William B. Feldman, MD, DPhil, MPH, detailed the ethical issues associated with substandard crossover in clinical trials.

“In the ethical design of clinical trials, patients make important sacrifices to participate, and in exchange, the academic and clinical communities owe them optimal treatment both during the intervention part of the trial and, if they progress, after progression, especially when it is directly in the control of the trial sponsor as to whether a drug that they produce is made available to a clinical trial participant,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote.

The authors highlighted 10 clinical trials – including SHINE, ZUMA-7, CLL14, ALCYONE, and JAVELIN 100 –  that had problematic crossover. In the SHINE trial, for instance, 39% of control arm patients with mantle cell lymphoma received BTKi therapy post progression, while in the ALCYONE trial of multiple myeloma, only 10% of control patients received daratumumab at first progression. The VISION trial had the lowest crossover rate, with only one control arm patient (0.5%) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving lutetium-PSMA-617 after progression.

“Depriving control arm patients access to standard-of-care post-RCT therapy also has important scientific implications,” Dr. Cliff and colleagues wrote. In oncology, “if patients in the control arm do not receive standard-of-care therapy after disease progression, then they are unfairly disadvantaged, and it becomes difficult to assess whether the intervention has indeed improved quality of life or survival.”

Clinical trials should be designed with both ethical behavior and scientific integrity in mind, Dr. Cliff told this news organization. It’s incumbent on everyone directly or peripherally involved in randomized trials to ensure that they are designed with mandatory unblinding at the time of disease progression, and that crossover is both allowed and funded by the trial sponsor and mandated by the trial investigators and FDA.

When it comes to clinical trials and the sacrifices patients make to participate, “I think everyone needs to lift their game,” Dr. Cliff said.

The commentary by Dr. Cliff and colleagues was supported by Arnold Ventures. Dr. Cliff disclosed institutional funding from the firm. Dr. Kesselheim reported reimbursement for expert testimony. Dr. Feldman reported consulting for Alosa Health and Aetion, and expert testimony on litigation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – In this age of corporate megamergers, private practice gastroenterologists are increasingly weighing the pros and cons of selling their practices to private equity firms.

It’s becoming more difficult for solo or small group practices to go it alone. While there may be advantages in selling a medical practice to a private equity firm, physicians could be trading a degree of freedom for financial certainty and relief from administrative burdens, according to Klaus Mergener, MD, PhD, MBA, AGAF, a clinical gastroenterologist, affiliate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief medical officer of Pentax Medical’s Lifecare Division.

ASGE

“Over the last decades, and ongoing, there have been massive downward pressures on reimbursements and costs are rising. Practices have tried to compensate, and they’ve added ancillary revenue streams, and they’ve tried to cut costs internally. It’s fair to say that depending on the local market, many practices find that one of the last viable options is essentially to spread overhead costs – meaning you have to get larger and you have to merge into larger entities,” he said on May 6 during a presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases Week^® meeting.

The first independent gastroenterology practice was purchased by a private equity firm in 2016. Today, more than 1,000 gastroenterologists have been acquired by private equity firms, which amounts to a total value in excess of $1 billion.

The pace at which private equity firms are buying private medical practices is accelerating. On April 26, Kaiser Permanente – with 39 hospitals and 24,000 physicians – announced that it had acquired Geisinger Health System, a regional health care provider in Pennsylvania with 10 hospitals, forming a new entity called Risant Health.

Dr. Mergener likened the situation to the story of David and Goliath. David famously defeated the much larger and more powerful Goliath, but the metaphor is imperfect, because small private practices are running out of rocks to sling at the big guys.

In some small, rural markets with no significant competition, it may be possible for small practices to survive through mergers, “but in most U.S. markets, it’s fair to say that ... practices have found it hard to merge without external help. There are egos involved, there are many hurdles, and this is where private equity has essentially moved in as catalyst,” Dr. Mergener said.

Employees of large entities

Other physicians, however, say that while acquisition may seem inevitable, private equity is an option for survival.

“I don’t think this means the demise of private practice,“ said Lawrence R. Kosinski, MD, MBA, AGAF , chief medical officer at SonarMD, a Chicago-based company that specializes in facilitating managing the care of patients with chronic conditions.

Capital Digestive Care

Private equity firms sell a bill of goods

“They say, ‘We’re going to improve your services, we’re going to bring you tech, we’re going to negotiate better contracts and do all these things for you.’ Ninety percent of it is a lie, because that’s not what they’re going to do. They’re just going to try to increase the bottom line, bolt down a few more practices, increase the gross revenue, and thereby increase the net profit from where it was before, not necessarily because they’re making better lives for the individual providers. They’re just adding more cows to the field, but every cow is the same as far as they’re concerned. They really don’t care about the production of milk,” Dr. Weinstein said.

A few years ago, his practice considered whether private equity would be a good option. His practice, he said, needed to be bigger and more effective and efficient. Instead, his practice formed a partnership with PE GI Solutions (formerly Physicians Endoscopy), a developer and manager of endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers.

In Dallas, private equity firms have increased reimbursements for Texas Digestive Disease Consultants.

“Our practice went through mergers, acquisitions, and now, with private equity coming onto the scene, it’s completely different,” said Kimberly M. Persley, MD, AGAF, a partner with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

Dr. Persley

“We were a five-person independent group negotiating contracts, getting cut every other year by some payer because they negotiated a better price with someone else. And having to go through that process every year when all we really want to do is take care of patients. Private equity adds to our group practice by having someone dedicated to negotiating these contracts, and getting reimbursed far more than we ever did prior to our involvement with private equity,” she said.
 

How it works

In the typical model, a private equity partner purchases the practice and creates a management services organization (MSO), which provides nonclinical services to the practice, theoretically freeing the physicians from the administrative burdens of day-to-day practice.

The practice then becomes the care center managed by the MSO, and the physicians in the practice at the time of the acquisition get stock in the MSO. “They sell a portion of their annual income, so going forward they’re making less money initially, until some of that is being recovered by higher efficiencies. They get an upfront check at a multiple of the income they just sold, and that provides the initial incentive. Then the entity is grown by adding other practices through the same mechanism,” Dr. Mergener said.

After about 5 years, the private equity partner typically sells the MSO to another, probably even larger buyer, and the cycle starts again.

In addition to the upfront incentive that makes practice mergers and consolidation work, the arrangement gives the GI practice access to top-notch administrators, as well as access to capital for investments such as information technology infrastructure, digital health, and data analytics.

He cautioned that it’s crucial for practices to enter the marriage with eyes wide open and be very careful in choosing the private equity partner.

“The goal is to find a partner that has values and a vision that matches the practice’s. In theory, they should be pulling on the same side of the rope, because if it’s a high-quality practice and efficiencies are being improved, more practices should be more likely to join,” which will benefit physicians, patients, and the private equity partner alike, Dr. Mergener said.

Although the private equity construct has been successful in the short term for many practices, it’s less clear what will happen long-term. There is a risk that after 5 years there won’t be a buyer for the MSO at the expected price, which may result in complex financial transactions that could leave the MSO in debt. In such a scenario, physician employees would not be personally liable, but might suffer the consequences of a failing or unsuccessful operation, Dr. Mergener said.

Dr. Mergener’s talk was presented as part of a an ASGE Presidential Plenary held during DDW 2023. He disclosed consulting, honoraria, advisory board activity or stock options from various corporations, but reported having no relationships with private equity.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

CHICAGO – In this age of corporate megamergers, private practice gastroenterologists are increasingly weighing the pros and cons of selling their practices to private equity firms.

It’s becoming more difficult for solo or small group practices to go it alone. While there may be advantages in selling a medical practice to a private equity firm, physicians could be trading a degree of freedom for financial certainty and relief from administrative burdens, according to Klaus Mergener, MD, PhD, MBA, AGAF, a clinical gastroenterologist, affiliate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief medical officer of Pentax Medical’s Lifecare Division.

ASGE

“Over the last decades, and ongoing, there have been massive downward pressures on reimbursements and costs are rising. Practices have tried to compensate, and they’ve added ancillary revenue streams, and they’ve tried to cut costs internally. It’s fair to say that depending on the local market, many practices find that one of the last viable options is essentially to spread overhead costs – meaning you have to get larger and you have to merge into larger entities,” he said on May 6 during a presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases Week^® meeting.

The first independent gastroenterology practice was purchased by a private equity firm in 2016. Today, more than 1,000 gastroenterologists have been acquired by private equity firms, which amounts to a total value in excess of $1 billion.

The pace at which private equity firms are buying private medical practices is accelerating. On April 26, Kaiser Permanente – with 39 hospitals and 24,000 physicians – announced that it had acquired Geisinger Health System, a regional health care provider in Pennsylvania with 10 hospitals, forming a new entity called Risant Health.

Dr. Mergener likened the situation to the story of David and Goliath. David famously defeated the much larger and more powerful Goliath, but the metaphor is imperfect, because small private practices are running out of rocks to sling at the big guys.

In some small, rural markets with no significant competition, it may be possible for small practices to survive through mergers, “but in most U.S. markets, it’s fair to say that ... practices have found it hard to merge without external help. There are egos involved, there are many hurdles, and this is where private equity has essentially moved in as catalyst,” Dr. Mergener said.

Employees of large entities

Other physicians, however, say that while acquisition may seem inevitable, private equity is an option for survival.

“I don’t think this means the demise of private practice,“ said Lawrence R. Kosinski, MD, MBA, AGAF , chief medical officer at SonarMD, a Chicago-based company that specializes in facilitating managing the care of patients with chronic conditions.

Capital Digestive Care

Private equity firms sell a bill of goods

“They say, ‘We’re going to improve your services, we’re going to bring you tech, we’re going to negotiate better contracts and do all these things for you.’ Ninety percent of it is a lie, because that’s not what they’re going to do. They’re just going to try to increase the bottom line, bolt down a few more practices, increase the gross revenue, and thereby increase the net profit from where it was before, not necessarily because they’re making better lives for the individual providers. They’re just adding more cows to the field, but every cow is the same as far as they’re concerned. They really don’t care about the production of milk,” Dr. Weinstein said.

A few years ago, his practice considered whether private equity would be a good option. His practice, he said, needed to be bigger and more effective and efficient. Instead, his practice formed a partnership with PE GI Solutions (formerly Physicians Endoscopy), a developer and manager of endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers.

In Dallas, private equity firms have increased reimbursements for Texas Digestive Disease Consultants.

“Our practice went through mergers, acquisitions, and now, with private equity coming onto the scene, it’s completely different,” said Kimberly M. Persley, MD, AGAF, a partner with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

Dr. Persley

“We were a five-person independent group negotiating contracts, getting cut every other year by some payer because they negotiated a better price with someone else. And having to go through that process every year when all we really want to do is take care of patients. Private equity adds to our group practice by having someone dedicated to negotiating these contracts, and getting reimbursed far more than we ever did prior to our involvement with private equity,” she said.
 

How it works

In the typical model, a private equity partner purchases the practice and creates a management services organization (MSO), which provides nonclinical services to the practice, theoretically freeing the physicians from the administrative burdens of day-to-day practice.

The practice then becomes the care center managed by the MSO, and the physicians in the practice at the time of the acquisition get stock in the MSO. “They sell a portion of their annual income, so going forward they’re making less money initially, until some of that is being recovered by higher efficiencies. They get an upfront check at a multiple of the income they just sold, and that provides the initial incentive. Then the entity is grown by adding other practices through the same mechanism,” Dr. Mergener said.

After about 5 years, the private equity partner typically sells the MSO to another, probably even larger buyer, and the cycle starts again.

In addition to the upfront incentive that makes practice mergers and consolidation work, the arrangement gives the GI practice access to top-notch administrators, as well as access to capital for investments such as information technology infrastructure, digital health, and data analytics.

He cautioned that it’s crucial for practices to enter the marriage with eyes wide open and be very careful in choosing the private equity partner.

“The goal is to find a partner that has values and a vision that matches the practice’s. In theory, they should be pulling on the same side of the rope, because if it’s a high-quality practice and efficiencies are being improved, more practices should be more likely to join,” which will benefit physicians, patients, and the private equity partner alike, Dr. Mergener said.

Although the private equity construct has been successful in the short term for many practices, it’s less clear what will happen long-term. There is a risk that after 5 years there won’t be a buyer for the MSO at the expected price, which may result in complex financial transactions that could leave the MSO in debt. In such a scenario, physician employees would not be personally liable, but might suffer the consequences of a failing or unsuccessful operation, Dr. Mergener said.

Dr. Mergener’s talk was presented as part of a an ASGE Presidential Plenary held during DDW 2023. He disclosed consulting, honoraria, advisory board activity or stock options from various corporations, but reported having no relationships with private equity.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

CHICAGO – In this age of corporate megamergers, private practice gastroenterologists are increasingly weighing the pros and cons of selling their practices to private equity firms.

It’s becoming more difficult for solo or small group practices to go it alone. While there may be advantages in selling a medical practice to a private equity firm, physicians could be trading a degree of freedom for financial certainty and relief from administrative burdens, according to Klaus Mergener, MD, PhD, MBA, AGAF, a clinical gastroenterologist, affiliate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and chief medical officer of Pentax Medical’s Lifecare Division.

ASGE

“Over the last decades, and ongoing, there have been massive downward pressures on reimbursements and costs are rising. Practices have tried to compensate, and they’ve added ancillary revenue streams, and they’ve tried to cut costs internally. It’s fair to say that depending on the local market, many practices find that one of the last viable options is essentially to spread overhead costs – meaning you have to get larger and you have to merge into larger entities,” he said on May 6 during a presentation at the annual Digestive Diseases Week^® meeting.

The first independent gastroenterology practice was purchased by a private equity firm in 2016. Today, more than 1,000 gastroenterologists have been acquired by private equity firms, which amounts to a total value in excess of $1 billion.

The pace at which private equity firms are buying private medical practices is accelerating. On April 26, Kaiser Permanente – with 39 hospitals and 24,000 physicians – announced that it had acquired Geisinger Health System, a regional health care provider in Pennsylvania with 10 hospitals, forming a new entity called Risant Health.

Dr. Mergener likened the situation to the story of David and Goliath. David famously defeated the much larger and more powerful Goliath, but the metaphor is imperfect, because small private practices are running out of rocks to sling at the big guys.

In some small, rural markets with no significant competition, it may be possible for small practices to survive through mergers, “but in most U.S. markets, it’s fair to say that ... practices have found it hard to merge without external help. There are egos involved, there are many hurdles, and this is where private equity has essentially moved in as catalyst,” Dr. Mergener said.

Employees of large entities

Other physicians, however, say that while acquisition may seem inevitable, private equity is an option for survival.

“I don’t think this means the demise of private practice,“ said Lawrence R. Kosinski, MD, MBA, AGAF , chief medical officer at SonarMD, a Chicago-based company that specializes in facilitating managing the care of patients with chronic conditions.

Capital Digestive Care

Private equity firms sell a bill of goods

“They say, ‘We’re going to improve your services, we’re going to bring you tech, we’re going to negotiate better contracts and do all these things for you.’ Ninety percent of it is a lie, because that’s not what they’re going to do. They’re just going to try to increase the bottom line, bolt down a few more practices, increase the gross revenue, and thereby increase the net profit from where it was before, not necessarily because they’re making better lives for the individual providers. They’re just adding more cows to the field, but every cow is the same as far as they’re concerned. They really don’t care about the production of milk,” Dr. Weinstein said.

A few years ago, his practice considered whether private equity would be a good option. His practice, he said, needed to be bigger and more effective and efficient. Instead, his practice formed a partnership with PE GI Solutions (formerly Physicians Endoscopy), a developer and manager of endoscopic ambulatory surgery centers.

In Dallas, private equity firms have increased reimbursements for Texas Digestive Disease Consultants.

“Our practice went through mergers, acquisitions, and now, with private equity coming onto the scene, it’s completely different,” said Kimberly M. Persley, MD, AGAF, a partner with Texas Digestive Disease Consultants and a member of the GI & Hepatology News board of editors.

Dr. Persley

“We were a five-person independent group negotiating contracts, getting cut every other year by some payer because they negotiated a better price with someone else. And having to go through that process every year when all we really want to do is take care of patients. Private equity adds to our group practice by having someone dedicated to negotiating these contracts, and getting reimbursed far more than we ever did prior to our involvement with private equity,” she said.
 

How it works

In the typical model, a private equity partner purchases the practice and creates a management services organization (MSO), which provides nonclinical services to the practice, theoretically freeing the physicians from the administrative burdens of day-to-day practice.

The practice then becomes the care center managed by the MSO, and the physicians in the practice at the time of the acquisition get stock in the MSO. “They sell a portion of their annual income, so going forward they’re making less money initially, until some of that is being recovered by higher efficiencies. They get an upfront check at a multiple of the income they just sold, and that provides the initial incentive. Then the entity is grown by adding other practices through the same mechanism,” Dr. Mergener said.

After about 5 years, the private equity partner typically sells the MSO to another, probably even larger buyer, and the cycle starts again.

In addition to the upfront incentive that makes practice mergers and consolidation work, the arrangement gives the GI practice access to top-notch administrators, as well as access to capital for investments such as information technology infrastructure, digital health, and data analytics.

He cautioned that it’s crucial for practices to enter the marriage with eyes wide open and be very careful in choosing the private equity partner.

“The goal is to find a partner that has values and a vision that matches the practice’s. In theory, they should be pulling on the same side of the rope, because if it’s a high-quality practice and efficiencies are being improved, more practices should be more likely to join,” which will benefit physicians, patients, and the private equity partner alike, Dr. Mergener said.

Although the private equity construct has been successful in the short term for many practices, it’s less clear what will happen long-term. There is a risk that after 5 years there won’t be a buyer for the MSO at the expected price, which may result in complex financial transactions that could leave the MSO in debt. In such a scenario, physician employees would not be personally liable, but might suffer the consequences of a failing or unsuccessful operation, Dr. Mergener said.

Dr. Mergener’s talk was presented as part of a an ASGE Presidential Plenary held during DDW 2023. He disclosed consulting, honoraria, advisory board activity or stock options from various corporations, but reported having no relationships with private equity.

DDW is sponsored by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT).

Baseball legend Leroy “Satchel” Paige famously said that “age is a question of mind over matter: If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.”

But even the strongest and most supple minds can’t avoid the effects of advanced age and accompanying physical frailty, and for community-dwelling elderly with pulmonary diseases frailty is a predictor of both hospitalization and death, investigators have found.

For example, among 1,188 community-dwelling older adults enrolled in the Toledo (Spain) Study for Healthy Aging, declining pulmonary function measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity (FVC) was associated with increased risk for frailty and hospitalization, and a more than twofold greater risk for death in participants both with and without respiratory diseases. These findings were reported by Walter Sepulveda-Loyola, PT, MSC, PhD, from the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences at Universidad de Las Americas in Santiago, Chile, and colleagues in the journal Heart & Lung.

Similarly, results of a meta-analysis performed by investigators at Jiangsu (China) University showed that among 13,203 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), frailty was associated with a more than 2.6-fold relative increase in risk for death from any cause, and “prefrailty,” an intermediate state between frailty and “robustness,” was associated with a 48% relative increase in all-cause mortality. Frailty was also associated with a 2.2-fold risk for COPD exacerbations of any severity, the authors reported in JAMDA: The Journal of Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

The good (old) USA

In June 2023 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the median age of the U.S. population is now 38.9 years, and according to a 2016 Census Bureau report funded by the National Institutes of Health, “America’s 65-and-over population is projected to nearly double over the next three decades, from 48 million to 88 million by 2050.”

With the graying of the U.S. population the burden on pulmonary and critical care experts will almost inevitably increase, as evidenced by research from Julien Cobert, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

The investigators looked at trends over time in older adults admitted to ICUs from 1988 through 2015 using data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative, longitudinal study of older adults. They found that rates of preexisting frailty, disability, and multimorbidity increased over the study period.

“Our findings suggest a growing prevalence of geriatric conditions among older adults admitted to the ICU, suggesting a pressing need to integrate geriatric principles into critical care medicine. Further research could examine if early interventions emphasizing physical, cognitive, mental health, delirium prevention, advance care planning, and rehabilitation individualized to critically ill elderly patients with preexisting geriatric conditions could improve ICU outcomes and post-ICU recovery,” they wrote in a study published in the journal CHEST.

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Cobert and colleagues, Nathan E. Brummel, MD, from The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute in Columbus, said “the finding that nearly 30% of overall HRS participants were admitted to the ICU provides novel data about the extent to which older Americans are affected by critical illness. Because the number of older Americans is projected to continue to increase for the next 30 years or more, these data make clear the ongoing importance of aging-focused research and clinical care.”

Dr. Brummel also noted that older adults who are admitted to the ICU today are at greater risk for poor outcomes than those admitted in prior years, as evidenced by the increased prevalence of disability, frailty, and multimorbidity.

“Moreover, because the average age of those admitted to the ICU only changed by 1 year during the study, these data show that increases in vulnerability are not simply due to chronological age, and they suggest that to identify those with greater baseline vulnerability, screening for geriatric syndromes at ICU admission may be warranted,” he wrote.
 

Geriatric principles in the ICU

“I think what’s most important is that we think about patients from a geriatric principles standpoint, not just when they’re admitted to the hospital but especially when they’re admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Cobert said in an interview.

“The first step is ensuring that we’re asking questions about their underlying comorbidities, especially around frailty, hearing, vision loss, falls, multimorbidities, polypharmacy – things that are primarily done on the outpatient side in geriatric clinics, but things that we should probably be a little bit more cognizant of, given that we’re starting to see higher rates of patients coming in with these issues,” he said.

Critical care specialists need to take a more holistic approach and try to understand as best they can each patients’ goals and then determine whether the ICU staff are acting in concordance with those goals, he emphasized.

For example, ICU clinicians should try to understand whether patients were losing function or having mobility difficulties before hospital and ICU admission, and what they hope to retain when or if they are discharged. ICU staff can then try as much as reasonably possible to minimize interventions that could contribute to impairment after discharge.
 

Frailty and COPD in the ICU

There are special considerations for frail elderly with obstructive airway disease, Dr. Cobert noted.

Patients with advanced COPD, for example, are likely to be on home oxygen.

“Home oxygen is a big deal,” he said. “It can definitely help with functioning and there’s potentially a mortality benefit in certain populations. But that said, it’s a flammable object that they have to carry around and lug with them all the time. It contributes to falls, it’s tethering, it’s life-limiting in many ways.”

In addition, many patients with COPD have multiple re-hospitalizations, and for clinicians the challenge is “understanding what their goals are, what their motivations are, especially when they live with dyspnea, with advanced lung disease. Is intubation within their goals of care? Has their functional status been declining over time? Are there things that we can optimize holistically and globally as their COPD advances over time?”

Another important component of critical care for the frail elderly is consideration of patients’ palliative care needs and what their symptoms and symptom burdens were like prior to hospitalizations.

“The ICU experience and the critical illness experience may serve as an inflexion point – more likely a downward inflection point – whereby their needs increase, their symptoms can worsen, and their health, especially their global health, worsens. Their preexisting geriatric conditions might be a moving target after another hit and another traumatic stressor like the ICU setting,” Dr. Cobert said.

The study by Dr. Cobert and colleagues was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Cobert had no reported conflicts of interest.

Baseball legend Leroy “Satchel” Paige famously said that “age is a question of mind over matter: If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.”

But even the strongest and most supple minds can’t avoid the effects of advanced age and accompanying physical frailty, and for community-dwelling elderly with pulmonary diseases frailty is a predictor of both hospitalization and death, investigators have found.

For example, among 1,188 community-dwelling older adults enrolled in the Toledo (Spain) Study for Healthy Aging, declining pulmonary function measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity (FVC) was associated with increased risk for frailty and hospitalization, and a more than twofold greater risk for death in participants both with and without respiratory diseases. These findings were reported by Walter Sepulveda-Loyola, PT, MSC, PhD, from the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences at Universidad de Las Americas in Santiago, Chile, and colleagues in the journal Heart & Lung.

Similarly, results of a meta-analysis performed by investigators at Jiangsu (China) University showed that among 13,203 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), frailty was associated with a more than 2.6-fold relative increase in risk for death from any cause, and “prefrailty,” an intermediate state between frailty and “robustness,” was associated with a 48% relative increase in all-cause mortality. Frailty was also associated with a 2.2-fold risk for COPD exacerbations of any severity, the authors reported in JAMDA: The Journal of Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

The good (old) USA

In June 2023 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the median age of the U.S. population is now 38.9 years, and according to a 2016 Census Bureau report funded by the National Institutes of Health, “America’s 65-and-over population is projected to nearly double over the next three decades, from 48 million to 88 million by 2050.”

With the graying of the U.S. population the burden on pulmonary and critical care experts will almost inevitably increase, as evidenced by research from Julien Cobert, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

The investigators looked at trends over time in older adults admitted to ICUs from 1988 through 2015 using data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative, longitudinal study of older adults. They found that rates of preexisting frailty, disability, and multimorbidity increased over the study period.

“Our findings suggest a growing prevalence of geriatric conditions among older adults admitted to the ICU, suggesting a pressing need to integrate geriatric principles into critical care medicine. Further research could examine if early interventions emphasizing physical, cognitive, mental health, delirium prevention, advance care planning, and rehabilitation individualized to critically ill elderly patients with preexisting geriatric conditions could improve ICU outcomes and post-ICU recovery,” they wrote in a study published in the journal CHEST.

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Cobert and colleagues, Nathan E. Brummel, MD, from The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute in Columbus, said “the finding that nearly 30% of overall HRS participants were admitted to the ICU provides novel data about the extent to which older Americans are affected by critical illness. Because the number of older Americans is projected to continue to increase for the next 30 years or more, these data make clear the ongoing importance of aging-focused research and clinical care.”

Dr. Brummel also noted that older adults who are admitted to the ICU today are at greater risk for poor outcomes than those admitted in prior years, as evidenced by the increased prevalence of disability, frailty, and multimorbidity.

“Moreover, because the average age of those admitted to the ICU only changed by 1 year during the study, these data show that increases in vulnerability are not simply due to chronological age, and they suggest that to identify those with greater baseline vulnerability, screening for geriatric syndromes at ICU admission may be warranted,” he wrote.
 

Geriatric principles in the ICU

“I think what’s most important is that we think about patients from a geriatric principles standpoint, not just when they’re admitted to the hospital but especially when they’re admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Cobert said in an interview.

“The first step is ensuring that we’re asking questions about their underlying comorbidities, especially around frailty, hearing, vision loss, falls, multimorbidities, polypharmacy – things that are primarily done on the outpatient side in geriatric clinics, but things that we should probably be a little bit more cognizant of, given that we’re starting to see higher rates of patients coming in with these issues,” he said.

Critical care specialists need to take a more holistic approach and try to understand as best they can each patients’ goals and then determine whether the ICU staff are acting in concordance with those goals, he emphasized.

For example, ICU clinicians should try to understand whether patients were losing function or having mobility difficulties before hospital and ICU admission, and what they hope to retain when or if they are discharged. ICU staff can then try as much as reasonably possible to minimize interventions that could contribute to impairment after discharge.
 

Frailty and COPD in the ICU

There are special considerations for frail elderly with obstructive airway disease, Dr. Cobert noted.

Patients with advanced COPD, for example, are likely to be on home oxygen.

“Home oxygen is a big deal,” he said. “It can definitely help with functioning and there’s potentially a mortality benefit in certain populations. But that said, it’s a flammable object that they have to carry around and lug with them all the time. It contributes to falls, it’s tethering, it’s life-limiting in many ways.”

In addition, many patients with COPD have multiple re-hospitalizations, and for clinicians the challenge is “understanding what their goals are, what their motivations are, especially when they live with dyspnea, with advanced lung disease. Is intubation within their goals of care? Has their functional status been declining over time? Are there things that we can optimize holistically and globally as their COPD advances over time?”

Another important component of critical care for the frail elderly is consideration of patients’ palliative care needs and what their symptoms and symptom burdens were like prior to hospitalizations.

“The ICU experience and the critical illness experience may serve as an inflexion point – more likely a downward inflection point – whereby their needs increase, their symptoms can worsen, and their health, especially their global health, worsens. Their preexisting geriatric conditions might be a moving target after another hit and another traumatic stressor like the ICU setting,” Dr. Cobert said.

The study by Dr. Cobert and colleagues was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Cobert had no reported conflicts of interest.

Baseball legend Leroy “Satchel” Paige famously said that “age is a question of mind over matter: If you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter.”

But even the strongest and most supple minds can’t avoid the effects of advanced age and accompanying physical frailty, and for community-dwelling elderly with pulmonary diseases frailty is a predictor of both hospitalization and death, investigators have found.

For example, among 1,188 community-dwelling older adults enrolled in the Toledo (Spain) Study for Healthy Aging, declining pulmonary function measured by forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and forced vital capacity (FVC) was associated with increased risk for frailty and hospitalization, and a more than twofold greater risk for death in participants both with and without respiratory diseases. These findings were reported by Walter Sepulveda-Loyola, PT, MSC, PhD, from the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences at Universidad de Las Americas in Santiago, Chile, and colleagues in the journal Heart & Lung.

Similarly, results of a meta-analysis performed by investigators at Jiangsu (China) University showed that among 13,203 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), frailty was associated with a more than 2.6-fold relative increase in risk for death from any cause, and “prefrailty,” an intermediate state between frailty and “robustness,” was associated with a 48% relative increase in all-cause mortality. Frailty was also associated with a 2.2-fold risk for COPD exacerbations of any severity, the authors reported in JAMDA: The Journal of Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

The good (old) USA

In June 2023 the U.S. Census Bureau announced that the median age of the U.S. population is now 38.9 years, and according to a 2016 Census Bureau report funded by the National Institutes of Health, “America’s 65-and-over population is projected to nearly double over the next three decades, from 48 million to 88 million by 2050.”

With the graying of the U.S. population the burden on pulmonary and critical care experts will almost inevitably increase, as evidenced by research from Julien Cobert, MD, from the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues.

The investigators looked at trends over time in older adults admitted to ICUs from 1988 through 2015 using data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative, longitudinal study of older adults. They found that rates of preexisting frailty, disability, and multimorbidity increased over the study period.

“Our findings suggest a growing prevalence of geriatric conditions among older adults admitted to the ICU, suggesting a pressing need to integrate geriatric principles into critical care medicine. Further research could examine if early interventions emphasizing physical, cognitive, mental health, delirium prevention, advance care planning, and rehabilitation individualized to critically ill elderly patients with preexisting geriatric conditions could improve ICU outcomes and post-ICU recovery,” they wrote in a study published in the journal CHEST.

In an editorial accompanying the study by Dr. Cobert and colleagues, Nathan E. Brummel, MD, from The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Davis Heart and Lung Research Institute in Columbus, said “the finding that nearly 30% of overall HRS participants were admitted to the ICU provides novel data about the extent to which older Americans are affected by critical illness. Because the number of older Americans is projected to continue to increase for the next 30 years or more, these data make clear the ongoing importance of aging-focused research and clinical care.”

Dr. Brummel also noted that older adults who are admitted to the ICU today are at greater risk for poor outcomes than those admitted in prior years, as evidenced by the increased prevalence of disability, frailty, and multimorbidity.

“Moreover, because the average age of those admitted to the ICU only changed by 1 year during the study, these data show that increases in vulnerability are not simply due to chronological age, and they suggest that to identify those with greater baseline vulnerability, screening for geriatric syndromes at ICU admission may be warranted,” he wrote.
 

Geriatric principles in the ICU

“I think what’s most important is that we think about patients from a geriatric principles standpoint, not just when they’re admitted to the hospital but especially when they’re admitted to the ICU,” Dr. Cobert said in an interview.

“The first step is ensuring that we’re asking questions about their underlying comorbidities, especially around frailty, hearing, vision loss, falls, multimorbidities, polypharmacy – things that are primarily done on the outpatient side in geriatric clinics, but things that we should probably be a little bit more cognizant of, given that we’re starting to see higher rates of patients coming in with these issues,” he said.

Critical care specialists need to take a more holistic approach and try to understand as best they can each patients’ goals and then determine whether the ICU staff are acting in concordance with those goals, he emphasized.

For example, ICU clinicians should try to understand whether patients were losing function or having mobility difficulties before hospital and ICU admission, and what they hope to retain when or if they are discharged. ICU staff can then try as much as reasonably possible to minimize interventions that could contribute to impairment after discharge.
 

Frailty and COPD in the ICU

There are special considerations for frail elderly with obstructive airway disease, Dr. Cobert noted.

Patients with advanced COPD, for example, are likely to be on home oxygen.

“Home oxygen is a big deal,” he said. “It can definitely help with functioning and there’s potentially a mortality benefit in certain populations. But that said, it’s a flammable object that they have to carry around and lug with them all the time. It contributes to falls, it’s tethering, it’s life-limiting in many ways.”

In addition, many patients with COPD have multiple re-hospitalizations, and for clinicians the challenge is “understanding what their goals are, what their motivations are, especially when they live with dyspnea, with advanced lung disease. Is intubation within their goals of care? Has their functional status been declining over time? Are there things that we can optimize holistically and globally as their COPD advances over time?”

Another important component of critical care for the frail elderly is consideration of patients’ palliative care needs and what their symptoms and symptom burdens were like prior to hospitalizations.

“The ICU experience and the critical illness experience may serve as an inflexion point – more likely a downward inflection point – whereby their needs increase, their symptoms can worsen, and their health, especially their global health, worsens. Their preexisting geriatric conditions might be a moving target after another hit and another traumatic stressor like the ICU setting,” Dr. Cobert said.

The study by Dr. Cobert and colleagues was supported by the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Cobert had no reported conflicts of interest.

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – Clinical trials are so White. Only a small percentage of eligible patients participate in clinical trials in the first place, and very few come from racial and ethnic minority groups.

For example, according to the Food and Drug Administration, in trials that resulted in drug approvals from 2017 to 2020, only 2%-5% of participants were Black patients.

When clinical trials lack diverse patient populations, those who are left out have fewer opportunities to get new therapies. Moreover, the scope of the research is limited by smaller phenotypic and genotypic samples, and the trial results are applicable only to more homogeneous patient groups.

There has been a push to include more underrepresented patients in clinical trials. One group reported its success in doing so here at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Researchers from the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology explained how a multifaceted approach resulted in a 75% relative improvement in trial enrollment from 2014 to 2022, a period that included a pandemic-induced hiatus in clinical trials in general.

Alliance member Electra D. Paskett, PhD, from the College of Public Health at the Ohio State University in Columbus, presented accrual data from 117 trials led by the Alliance from 2014 to 2022.

During this period, accrual of racial and ethnic minority patients increased from 13.6% to 25.3% for cancer treatment trials and from 13% to 21.5% for cancer control trials.

Overall, the recruitment program resulted in an absolute increase from 13.5 % to 23.6% of underrepresented populations, which translated into a relative 74.8% improvement.

“We’re focusing now on monitoring accrual of women, rural populations, younger AYAs [adolescents and young adults] and older patients, and we’ll see what strategies we need to implement,” Dr. Packett told this news organization.

The Alliance has implemented a real-time accrual dashboard on its website that allows individual sites to review accrual by trial and overall for all of the identified underrepresented populations, she noted.
 

Program to increase underrepresented patient accrual

The impetus for the program to increase enrollment of underrepresented patients came from the goal set by Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, group chair of the Alliance from 2011 to 2022 and currently the director of the U.S. National Cancer Institute.

“Our leader, Dr. Bertagnolli, set out a group-wide goal for accrual of underrepresented minorities to our trials of 20%, and that gave us permission to implement a whole host of new strategies,” Dr. Paskett said in an interview.

“These strategies follow the Accrual of Clinical Trials framework, which essentially says that the interaction between the patient and the provider for going on a clinical trial is not just an interaction between the patient and provider but recognizes, for example, that the provider has coworkers and they have norms and beliefs and attitudes, and the patient comes from a family with their own values. And then there are system-level barriers, and there are community barriers that all relate to this interaction about going on a trial,” Dr. Packett said.
 

What works?

The study was presented as a poster at the meeting. During the poster discussion session, comoderator Victoria S. Blinder, MD, from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, asked Dr. Paskett, “If you had a certain amount of money and you really wanted to use that resource to focus on one area, where would you put that resource?”

“I’m going to violate the rules of your question,” Dr. Paskett replied.

“You cannot change this problem by focusing on one thing, and that’s what we showed in our Alliance poster, and what I’ve said is based on over 30 years of work in this area,” she said.

She cited what she considered as the two most important components for improving accrual of underrepresented populations: a commitment by leadership to a recruitment goal, and the development of protocols with specific accrual goals for minority populations.

Still, those are only two components of a comprehensive program that includes the aforementioned accrual goal set by Dr. Bertagnolli, as well as the following:

• Funding of minority junior investigators and research that focuses on issues of concern to underrepresented populations.
• Establishment of work groups that focus on specific populations with the Alliance health disparities committee.
• Translation of informational materials for patients.
• Opening studies at National Cancer Institute Community. Oncology Research Program–designated minority underserved sites.
• Real-time monitoring of accrual demographics by the Alliance and at the trial site.
• Closing protocol enrollment to majority populations.
• Increasing the study sample sizes to enroll additional minority participants and to allow for subgroup analyses.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Packett and Dr. Blinder reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO – One-third of patients with cancer also experience anxiety or depression, and an estimated 70% of the 18 million patients with cancer and cancer survivors in the US experience emotional symptoms, including fear of recurrence.

Despite many having these symptoms, few patients with cancer have access to psycho-oncologic support.

A digital cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) application may help to ease some of the burden, reported Allison Ramiller, MPH, of Blue Note Therapeutics in San Francisco, which developed the app version of the program.

In the randomized controlled RESTORE study, use of the cell phone–based CBSM app was associated with significantly greater reduction in symptoms of anxiety and depression compared with a digital health education control app.

In addition, patients assigned to the CBSM app were twice as likely as control persons to report that their symptoms were “much” or “very much” improved after using the app for 12 weeks, Ms. Ramiller reported at an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

However, the investigators did not report baseline characteristics of patients in each of the study arms, which might have helped to clarify the depth of the effects they saw.

The CBSM program was developed by Michael H. Antoni, PhD, and colleagues in the University of Miami Health System. It is based on cognitive-behavioral therapy but also includes stress management and relaxation techniques to help patients cope with cancer-specific stress.

“”It has been clinically validated and shown to benefit patients with cancer,” Ms. Ramiller said. “However, access is a problem,” she said.

“There aren’t enough qualified, trained providers for the need, and patients with cancer encounter barriers to in-person participation, including things like transportation or financial barriers. So to overcome this, we developed a digitized version of CBSM,” she explained.
 

Impressive and elegant

“Everything about [the study] I thought was very impressive, very elegant, very nicely done,” said invited discussant Raymond U. Osarogiagbon, MBBS, FACP, chief scientist at Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp in Memphis, Tenn.

“They showed efficacy, they showed safety – very nice – user friendliness – very good. Certainly they look like they’re trying to address a highly important, unmet need in a very elegant way. Certainly, they pointed out it needs longer follow-up to see sustainability. We need to see will this work in other settings. Will this be cost-effective? You’ve gotta believe it probably will be,” he said.

CBSM has previously been shown to help patients with cancer reduce stress, improve general and cancer-specific quality of life at various stages of treatment, reduce symptom burden, and improve coping skills, Ms. Ramiller said.

To see whether these benefits could be conveyed digitally rather than in face-to-face encounters, Ms. Ramiller and colleagues worked with Dr. Antoni to develop the CBSM app.

Patients using the app received therapeutic content over 10 sessions with audio, video, and interactive tools that mimicked the sessions they would have received during in-person interventions.

They then compared the app against the control educational app in the randomized, decentralized RESTORE study.
 

High-quality control

Ms. Ramiller said that the control app set “a high bar.”

“The control also offered 10 interactive self-guided sessions. Both treatment apps were professionally designed and visually similar in styling, and they were presented as digital therapeutic-specific for cancer patients. And they were also in a match condition, meaning they received the same attention from study staff and cadence of reminders, but importantly, only the intervention app was based on CBSM,” she explained.

A total of 449 patients with cancers of stage I–III who were undergoing active systemic treatment or were planning to undergo such treatment within 6 months were randomly assigned to the CBSM app or the control app.

The CBSM app was superior to the control app for the primary outcome of anxiety reduction over baseline, as measured at 4, 8 and 12 weeks by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Anxiety Scale (PROMIS-A) (beta = -.03; P = .019).

CBSM was also significantly better than the control app for the secondary endpoints of reducing symptoms of depression, as measured by the PROMIS-D scale (beta = -.02, P = .042), and also at increasing the percentage of patients who reported improvement in anxiety and depression symptoms on the Patient Global Impression of Change instrument (P < .001)

An extension study of the durability of the effects at 3 and 6 months is underway.

The investigators noted that the incremental cost of management of anxiety or depression is greater than $17,000 per patient per year.

“One of the big promises of a digital therapeutic like this is that it could potentially reduce costs,” Ms. Ramiller told the audience, but she acknowledged, “More work is really needed, however, to directly test the potential savings.”

The RESTORE study is funded by Blue Note Therapeutics. Dr. Osarogiagbon owns stock in Gilead, Lilly, and Pfizer, has received honoraria from Biodesix and Medscape, and has a consulting or advisory role for the American Cancer Society AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, LUNGevity, National Cancer Institute, and Triptych Health Partners.
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.